Jose Magana-Torres v. Amy Miller , 582 F. App'x 673 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE HUMBERTO MAGANA-TORRES, No. 12-16804
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02669-WBS-
TJB
v.
AMY MILLER, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and HAYES, District Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable William Q. Hayes, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
Jose Humberto Magana-Torres, a California state prisoner, appeals the
district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his
conviction for several crimes, including home invasion and attempted murder. We
dismiss.
None of the grounds for relief in Magana-Torres’ Opening Brief are
encompassed within the certificate of appealability issued by the district court. We
construe Magana-Torres’ Opening Brief as a motion to expand the certificate of
appealability. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Schneider v. McDaniel, 674 F.3d
1144, 1155–56 (9th Cir. 2012). So construed, the motion is denied. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (“The petitioner must
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (“[U]ntil a [certificate of appealability] has been issued
federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to rule on the merits of appeals from
habeas petitioners.”).
DISMISSED.
2